...because then, how would black people know who to vote for? Or rather, to use the DOJ's own language: if we don't have partisan elections, not enough straight-ticket white voters will ensure black candidates are successful!

Synopsis: Kinston, NC voters overwhelmingly voted to make their municipal elections non-partisan, like most NC municipal elections. Except that because they're on a DOJ watch-list for the Voting Rights Act, everything they do election-wise has to go through the DOJ. Who, in turn, rejected this change... because straight-ticket voting is apparently the only way black candidates will be elected in a town whose demographics are majority-black.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/20/justice-dept-blocks-ncs-nonpartisan-vote/?feat=home_cube_position1&page=2

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=5670

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec_5/pdfs/l_081709.pdf

I'll just quote the relevant section of the DOJ reply:

Quote :

"Black voters have had limited success in electing candidates of choice during recent municipal elections. The success that they have achieved has resulted from cohesive support for candidates during the Democratic primary (where black voters represent a larger percentage of the electorate), combined with crossover voting by whites in the general election. It is the partisan makeup of the general electorate that results in enough white cross-over to allow the black community to elect a candidate of choice."

Welcome to post-racial America!

10/20/2009 5:18:47 PM

i hate institutional racism.

10/20/2009 5:23:16 PM

I've often argued that party labels should be removed from ballots. The reason is obvious enough. If it wasn't easy to simply vote straight ticket or vote for everyone with an R or D next to their name, you'd have to actually learn about the candidates...or vote for random people, or not vote at all. All of those possible outcomes are much better than the alternative, which is currently in effect: people voting for parties, not individuals.

The argument often made against removing party labels is the one made by Justice department: people won't know who to vote for. I don't think that's a bad thing. If people want to figure out who to vote for, they should actually research the candidates, and see where those candidates stand on issues that matter to them.

Of course, measures like this won't come to pass anytime soon. The two parties in power have no interest in something that could potentially cause them to lose loyal voters. Both parties depend on the loyal masses that will blindly vote their incumbents in every single time, even when that incumbent is totally incompetent.

The whole race component of this thing reeks of collectivism.

10/20/2009 5:46:58 PM

^,^^,^^^

[Edited on October 20, 2009 at 6:12 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2009 6:12:37 PM

^

10/21/2009 2:01:09 AM

^^^^^^, >, v

10/21/2009 1:22:33 PM

[Edited on October 21, 2009 at 2:03 PM. Reason : didnt work]

10/21/2009 2:03:06 PM

^ ^ v v < > < > b a

10/21/2009 2:10:21 PM

yeah, this is bullshit and should offend a lot of people... but it wont.

Moron, pretty funny.

10/21/2009 2:54:35 PM

i love how everyone assumes that whites only vote for whites and blacks only vote for blacks sometimes...

Quote :

"The argument often made against removing party labels is the one made by Justice department: people won't know who to vote for. I don't think that's a bad thing. If people want to figure out who to vote for, they should actually research the candidates, and see where those candidates stand on issues that matter to them."

ding ding ding ding

but wait! in today's america why do something for yourself when you can have the government do it for you!

10/21/2009 3:06:11 PM

Damn, the government is basically saying that black people are too lazy/stupid to research candidates on their own. Pretty insulting, and from savior obama's administration too. Tsk tsk tsk...

10/21/2009 3:09:56 PM

The party-label debate is really all about which party stands to gain from removing the labels.

10/21/2009 3:43:39 PM

^Both parties would end up losing some of their precious, entrenched incumbents. That's why it probably won't happen for federal elections. Without legions of yes men at their disposal, the parties could lose some of their influence. How terrible would that be?

10/21/2009 3:47:50 PM

I'm not sure voting for the blackest/whitest/leftiest/rightiest sounding name is better than voting for a major party.

10/21/2009 3:58:46 PM

I'm not convinced that many people would do that. Maybe for the first couple elections after party labels were removed, sure. Eventually they'd learn that straight ticket voting wouldn't be an option, and they'd have to do research beforehand.

10/21/2009 4:04:58 PM

if it wasn't for the "D" beside his name at the ballot, I never would have known that Barack Obama was black based on his name alone.

10/21/2009 9:32:11 PM

Why were they on the DOJ watch list for the Voting Rights Act in the first place?

I have a feeling that this information would be very important, and it seems to be being ignored.

10/21/2009 9:56:25 PM

^ It's in the first article I listed:

Quote :

"Kinston is one of the areas subject to provisions of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires the city to receive Justice Department approval before making any changes to voting procedures. Kinston is one of 12,000 voting districts in areas of 16 states, almost exclusively in the South, that the Voting Rights Act declared to have had a history of racial discrimination."

In the future, reading the article in question is generally helpful.

10/21/2009 10:00:24 PM

i'm a fairly liberal person, and i can't imagine anyone supporting this type of decision. this is absolutely absurd and undemocratic.

10/21/2009 10:01:48 PM

Believe it or not, that doesn't actually answer my question. It says "history of..." without actually saying what that history is.

But I would understand why they wouldn't want to go on and on about historical reasons in the article.

Anyway, it's up to the city to decide to appeal the decision, they haven't made that decision yet. Until they do there's not much complaining about it will do.

10/21/2009 10:11:17 PM

Quote :

"reading the article in question is generally helpful."

Yeah, and I'm not sure if you didn't read the article or didn't read timswar's question.

10/21/2009 11:16:58 PM

Quote :

"Kinston is one of 12,000 voting districts in areas of 16 states, almost exclusively in the South, that the Voting Rights Act declared to have had a history of racial discrimination."

So, exactly what is the unanswered question? Why, in particular, this district was declared by the procedures in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to have a history of racial discrimination?

Here's a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_act#Section_5_-_Preclearance

Quote :

"Those states which had less than 50 percent of the voting age population voting in 1960 and/or 1964 were covered in the original act. (The average percentage of the voting age population participating in a presidential election then was in the mid-60s, instead of about 50 percent, as has occurred in 1996, 2000, and 2004.) In addition, some counties and towns that have been found in violation of section 2 have been added."

Lenoir county is still subject to county-level coverage, and hence why this initiative was subject to DOJ review. Why? I don't know. But, doing again some rudimentary googling, I found this:

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/28cfr/51/apdx_txt.php

Quote :

"..Lenoir County..........Nov. 1, 1964..30 FR 9897.....Aug. 7, 1965"

So, they were added due to events in 1964, becoming effective for enforcement in 1965. Which, again, pretty much eludes to what was stated in the original article.

Again, I ask, did anyone bother to read the link?

[Edited on October 21, 2009 at 11:32 PM. Reason : .]

10/21/2009 11:26:52 PM

Quote :

"So, exactly what is the unanswered question? Why, in particular, this district was declared by the procedures in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to have a history of racial discrimination?"

Are you being intentionally obtuse, or did you really not understand that the guy was asking what specific events, when, etc.? Obviously you did, since you then posted more information that was NOT IN THE ARTICLE.

"history of discrimination" is a vague, worthless explanation.

10/21/2009 11:44:46 PM

Quote :

"Are you being intentionally obtuse, or did you really not understand that the guy was asking what specific events, when, etc.? Obviously you did, since you then posted more information that was NOT IN THE ARTICLE."

Quote :

"Lenoir county is still subject to county-level coverage, and hence why this initiative was subject to DOJ review. Why? I don't know."

Which of us is being obtuse, here? What I did was to put a date to said "history of racial discrimination," which is 1964, i.e., the original passing of the Act. Despite your inability to read anything posted so far, this seems extremely relevant.

10/21/2009 11:49:47 PM

look at you getting all hooksaw 'n shit.

10/21/2009 11:57:38 PM

Yeah, okay, feel free to own up to your error anytime now. Or not - my expectations are low enough. In the meantime, I'm not going to be held liable for your steadfast refusal to actually, say, read things.

10/22/2009 12:12:47 AM

Look, here's why it's important. If Lenoir county had a history of racism in the business districts it'd be one thing, but if their history of racism is based on something like voter intimidation, misleading information at the polls, and general mucking about with elections then the DOJ might actually have a decent reason for what they've done here.

Context is important.

10/22/2009 7:39:31 AM

Okay, but my counter-point is that whatever it is, it was basically pre-1964. It was historically bad - enough to put it on the pre-clear least when the VRA was passed - but now we're looking at somewhere which is both majority-black and majority-Democratic, and went overwhelmingly for Obama. The local population also passed this initiative by a wide margin themselves.

Basically what the DOJ is saying is that they know the interests of black voters in the city than they do themselves. The reason this is even coming up under scrutiny is because of the fact that this county is so heavily Democratic, and thus the conclusion the DOJ reaches is that (bafflingly) such a change would have "only" a racial impact. It's an inversion of the original logic of the act.

10/22/2009 9:33:19 AM

Quote :

"i love how everyone assumes that whites only vote for whites and blacks only vote for blacks sometimes..."

No wai! Obama totally won with 14% of the people in the nation voting for him. I mean, voter turnout is only a minority of the population anyway, so that allows for all the minorities in the nation to get him in by unanimously vote for him.

I mean, I don't have any white friends who campaigned for Obama. And I expect that your experience is identical to mine.

10/22/2009 9:52:56 AM